But why is there a divide between Buddhist morals and Buddhist
insight? Or does one mindset become apparent with the other?
Also AEN, could you comment on Jon's original post? I'm curious to
know how you see it from your POV.
I'm still reading those articles, so don't give up on me. Thanks to
both of you :)
Because morality and insight training are really quite different
areas.
Morality deals with relative truths and working skillfully
within this field, while insight training deals with discerning the
ultimate nature of reality. For example relatively speaking we talk
about 'me', 'you', 'him', etc.
These are just conventional designations, and are fine -- but
the problem is when we take it to be more than what they are really
pointing to -- we treat 'me' or 'self' as a separate, independent,
and permanent entity -- but upon investigation no such fixed entity
can ever be found. 'Me', 'self', 'others' are useful concepts and
designation -- without which we cannot function in our everyday
interactions with people, but becomes a problem when we
become attached and identified with these
positions as being ultimate, absolute, there being 'truly inherent'
and 'truly existing self'.
We think we are separate, independent, permanent entities, but
when we really become mindful and aware of our experiential process
of what we call 'self' we really see only a bunch of thoughts,
feelings, sensations, arising and subsiding in lightning speed,
happening naturally on its own in a causal fashion -- without a
separate doer or controller, nor a perceiver. A separate and
'fixed' self cannot be found apart from the transient flow of
phenomenality. There is only that everchanging flow, nothing fixed,
nothing independent, nothing separate, nothing that can be
identified as a 'self'. It is merely designated as 'self' for
conventional purposes, but nothing inherent, independent or static
can be found. There is in reality only a Dynamic Presence without
center and circumference, not separated from the universe, not
separated from the Totality. There is no division between 'me in
here' and 'universe out there'. There is just One. That is our true
nature.
To add on to your already heavy reading list (hehe) there's a
good article by Toni Packer here, it's written in a way to bring
your attention to our whole process of experiencing to discover
ourselves whether is there really an entity called 'me' or not --
it's not a theory, it is written from experiential insights.
The article: What
Is The "Me"?
Lastly, practice is still important -- in Buddhism to gain
insights we practice Vipashyana or Vipassana practice, which means
insight practice.
Our true nature is already spontaneously perfected -- i.e.,
there is nothing you can do to make our pristine awareness brighter
than it already is. It always is bright and shining, but whether we
notice it is another issue. Furthermore -- there is no need to 'get
rid of a self', 'get rid of ego', etc etc... always already, there
is no separate self. This is not a matter of getting rid of
something -- but realising that always already, in seeing Always
just scenery, no seer. In thinking Always just thought, no thinker.
In acting Always just action, no actor. In hearing Always just
sound, no hearer, etc... a separate perceiver or agent or self
behind manifestation cannot be found.The very attempt to get rid of
self is based on ignorance and the belief that there is a 'self'
that is existing that must be 'gotten rid of'. But getting rid of a
'self' is just like trying to get rid of the 'horns of a rabbit' --
since no rabbits have horns, i.e. no horns can be found on rabbits,
similarly no 'self entity' can be found to be gotten rid off.
So why practice, since our nature and the nature of reality is
already perfectly shining awareness, already empty of self, already
empty of inherent existence, etc...
The reason why we need to practice is because the dualistic and
inherent way of viewing in terms of 'self', duality, inherency, is
very very strong in us due to strong karmic
propensities/tendencies/conditioning and continues to affect every
moment of our perception, inquiry, and relating. We relate our
experiences dualistically and inherently, because we fail to
realise the nature of mind, the nature of reality.
And so we need to practice. But as explained earlier, practice
is not about trying to get rid of something to achieve something
(e.g. to brighten awareness, to reach a state of egolessness, etc.)
It is not a 'state' that can be reached -- rather it is
simply seeing on a level beyond conceptual knowledge what is always
and already so, i.e. our ever-present true nature. Insight
practices are designed for us to investigate, be aware of, the true
nature of mind and reality. We investigate if there is truly a
separate self entity that can be found. In the Mahamudra Vipashyana
practices the practitioner is told to investigate what is the Mind
like -- is it a tangible object that has colour or shape or size?
Does it have a location? Or is it empty? Is its emptiness like a
void or nothingness, or like space, or does it have an innate lucid
knowingness? Does all other phenomena, thoughts, perceptions, have
the same nature? Etc. By looking into our own mind, we discover the
facts about our true nature not through theory but through direct
experience of what we really are. In the Theravadin traditions,
vipassana practitioners are also told to observe in their
meditations the impermanence, suffering, and no-self
characteristics on a moment to moment basis with precision (that
is, not to even miss a single arising and subsiding of phenomena in
real time!) It is this deep clarity that allows insights about the
nature of reality to arise..
This 'practice' is not only limited to sitting meditation
sessions but what is also important is to integrate the recognition
and insight in our daily lives. Once we have some glimpses and
recognition of our ever present awareness then we simply abide/rest
in/relax into this fundamental seeing/awareness as much as possible
and stop being lost and caught up in our thoughts, feelings and
emotions. When doubts arise, question it and come back to what is
clear, obvious and undeniable.
Insight practice, or vipassana, or vipashyana, should be
distinguished from other concentrative practices known as
'Shamatha' in Buddhism, including but not limited to breathe
control, mundane yoga, chanting mantras, visualisation, or any form
of pure focusing techniques that aims to bring the mind to a state
of one pointedness. Though these practices are important to bring
the mind to a state of calm and one pointedness so that the mind
can truly inquire into our own nature without distractions,
nevertheless these concentrative techniques by themselves
does not lead to insights, enlightenment, liberation, or Nirvana,
but does lead to altered states of consciousness, blissful form and
formless absorptions known as jhanas, samadhi, psychic powers, and
so on. Altered states however, are transient, unlike
insights.
Insight practices do not aim for altered states, it is not about
reaching a 'more enlightened state of altered
consciousness' but simply the insight into the nature of mind --
i.e., what is already and always the case in/as your ordinary
present awareness, in which different contents and thoughts may
appear but never obscure its luminosity.
